A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #401  
Old May 26th 05, 10:18 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com>,
> wrote:
>
>
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article .com>,
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> >> In article . com>,
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >I'll bet not. DOT admin, state patrol costs, etc.
>> >>
>> >> I guess you're not a good gambler. (State patrol costs? What, are
>> >> you kidding? State patrol is revenue positive; why do you think they
>> >> have those ticket books?)
>> >
>> >Maybe in PA, but not here in WA.

>>
>> Depends on who is doing the accounting.

>
>How?


The usual trick is simply to count the cost of the patrols, but not to
count the revenue from traffic fines and (especially) the associated fees.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Ads
  #403  
Old May 26th 05, 10:52 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article .com>,
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >Matthew Russotto wrote:
> >> In article .com>,
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Matthew Russotto wrote:
> >> >> In article . com>,
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I'll bet not. DOT admin, state patrol costs, etc.
> >> >>
> >> >> I guess you're not a good gambler. (State patrol costs? What, are
> >> >> you kidding? State patrol is revenue positive; why do you think they
> >> >> have those ticket books?)
> >> >
> >> >Maybe in PA, but not here in WA.
> >>
> >> Depends on who is doing the accounting.

> >
> >How?

>
> The usual trick is simply to count the cost of the patrols, but not to
> count the revenue from traffic fines and (especially) the associated fees.


I cannot find any info on WA state that suggests that the State Patrol
is citation-revenue positive. They only get 32% of the ticket revenue,
while the locale in which the ticket is written gets 68%.

If you can find data that somehow supports your assertion that citation
revenue wholly pays for State Patrol operations, I'd love to see it.

Start with any state.

E.P.

  #404  
Old May 26th 05, 10:53 PM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>> wrote:
>>>
(Brent P) wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But no usage tax.
>>>>
>>>> Show me a usage tax for automobiles. Extra points if you can show
>>>> one in IL.
>>>
>>> Easy,your plate fee.

>>
>> That's not a usage fee.

>
> Sure it is;you pay it every year,not just once.For just registration,once
> is all that's needed,but you pay every time you renew.That's a usage fee.


IL charges extra every year for special plates. Ones with fancy designs
or custom numbers. My lesser custom plates used to be the same amount to
renew, now they are slightly more. Tell me, how does my car use more of
the road with this license plate 'number' than with a random one?


>>> You don't need a plate if you use your auto on private property.

>>
>> I don't need turn signals, good tires, brakes, and whole host of other
>> things to use a vehicle on private property.
>>
>>> Note that you still also pay a sales tax when you bought the auto,but
>>> not every time you renew your plates.

>>
>>>> I paid use tax on my bicycle when I bought it, same with my cars.

>>
>>> No,you paid a SALES tax.

>>
>> Check IL law. It's semantically called a *USE* tax. This way the state
>> thinks it can then legally collect it on items purchased out of state
>> as a way around the ban on states taxing interstate commerce. IL taxes
>> the use of the item in the state. It functions like a sales tax and is
>> simply a semantic end run around federal law, but you want split
>> semantic hairs so....



>>> You would pay that even if your auto or bicycle
>>> never used any public road.The auto license fee is the fee you pay
>>> every year to use the public roads.

>>
>> The use tax in IL is paid at the time of purchase. When one goes to
>> register a car they just purchased in this state, one has to pay
>> title, registration, and use tax. I had to pay this tax on my
>> torqueless wonder car even though the sales price was ZERO. Thankfully
>> it was the lowest possible value because the car was over the age
>> limit and from a family member.


> You just acknowledged that the plate fee IS a usage fee.(and you pay every
> time you renew)


No. Title = $65, Plates = $78 (or more if it's a special plate), and the
use tax is based on the model year of the car or the sales price or some
other method, I forget.

http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/

>>>>> If states were to tax vehicles and fuel to completely pay for the
>>>>> roads,no one could afford to drive anything.

>>
>>>> What you are saying is that people who drive less are supporting
>>>> those who drive more.

>>
>>> No,because even people who do not drive or even own any vehicle
>>> benefit from roads.Roads carry commerce,like food.Even people who
>>> never travel at all benefit from roads.

>>
>> What you are saying is that without people who drive less paying more
>> than they use, driving would be too expensive. Wether they *should* or
>> not isn't part of this. You just stated you need non-drivers paying a
>> good portion of the costs.


> Because of the benefits they receive via the roads.
> To USE the roads,they pay more via the yearly plate fee.


How you try and justify it is irrelevant. Your statement is one of
needing people who don't drive to pay.

>>
>>>> That if roads et al were paid for by actual use, then
>>>> driving would be rather expensive. You want driving to be cheap so
>>>> everybody is taxed regardless of how much they drive. The true
>>>> meaning of your statement is that your driving is dependent upon
>>>> people who drive much less or not at all.

>>
>>> No,because even people who do not drive or even own any vehicle
>>> benefit from roads.

>>
>> That's an arguement for *should*. Your statement is very clear, you
>> need non drivers and people who drive less than what they pay for to
>> keep the system affordable for people who drive more. Wether those who
>> don't drive enough to get their 'money's worth' directly benefit or
>> not isn't even part of this.


> Damn right about that nonsense. "get their money's worth".<snort>


Your initial statement was very clear. You need to collect taxes from
nondrivers.

>> You need them not using the roads
>> themselves, directly, with motor vehicles to keep driving affordable.
>> You were very clear.


> Only in your twisted mind.
> I refered to paying the total cost of a road only thru plate fees would be
> unaffordable,and others still benefit from them without contributing(like
> bicycles).


The moment you admit that non-drivers pay for the roads you lost the
arguement. You are now exactly what I said, someone hung up on semantics.
If I paid exactly the same amount and one of the line items on my
property tax was labeled 'road usage' your semantic arguement would be
satisified, but there would be no effective difference.

>> Thusly, bicyclists help keep driving affordable by using their
>> bicycles instead of their cars.


> Nonsense.


Your statement was clear, you need non drivers and even non road users
paying for roads to keep driving affordable.


  #405  
Old May 27th 05, 02:53 AM
Wayne Pein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Matthew Russotto wrote:


> I don't disagree that bicycles do negligible damage to roads used by
> vehicles; that's because the other sources of damage render the damage
> done by bicycles negligible. I do dispute that bicycles do
> negligible damage to tracks where the bicycles are the primary
> vehicular users. The local gravel bike trails _do_ need maintenence,
> and the asphalt trails are showing wear, in particular the top layer
> appears to be being worn down exposing the rougher materials in the aggregate.


Often, paved trails are pathetically constructed and far inferior to
even the most minor road.

Wayne

  #406  
Old May 27th 05, 03:54 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article .com>,
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >Matthew Russotto wrote:
> >>
> >> Anyway, he's right about the pressure on the road being the same as
> >> the pressure in the tires. He's wrong about total weight being the
> >> only determinant of pavement damage, though.

> >
> >:-) Yet I never said that it was the _only_ determinant. Go back and
> >read more carefully.

>
> You: "I have seen no evidence that pavement damage is
> significantly related to pressure. Instead, pavement engineers
> commonly accept that pavement damage is related to total weight, with
> damage much more than proportional to weight."
>
> That wording strongly implies that total weight is the only
> determinant, or the only significant determinant, of road damage.


Golly - how long have you had that reading comprehension problem? It
may still be able to be fixed, you know!

To help you out: What I said was I'd seen no relation to pressure, and
that engineers accept a relation to weight. I made no comment on the
thousands of other possible relations. IOW, I said nothing that
implied "only."

Is that clear? If not, try
http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforre...t_reading.html


>
> I don't disagree that bicycles do negligible damage to roads used by
> vehicles...


Good. As far as I can tell, roads used by vehicles are the main topic
of this thread. Glad we're finally past that point.

- Frank Krygowski

  #407  
Old May 27th 05, 05:06 AM
Mike Latondresse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jim Yanik .> wrote in
:

> Because they use illegal tactics that are prohibited for autos or
> other motor vehicles.Like squeezing between car and curb.They
> often do not stop for stop signs or stop lights.They also often
> ride on the wrong side of the road. They often fail to use any
> turn or stop signals.
>

Yeah mean they are cheating! How aweful in fact shameful. In
Vancouver in Bike-to-work-week we have a race between a fit cyclist
and a car to a downtown point (don't know if the driver is fit, in
fact highly unlikely however it doesn't bias the result). The cyclist
has always won.

  #408  
Old May 27th 05, 04:41 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Jim Yanik wrote:
>
> Because they use illegal tactics that are prohibited for autos or other
> motor vehicles.Like squeezing between car and curb.They often do not stop
> for stop signs or stop lights.They also often ride on the wrong side of the
> road. They often fail to use any turn or stop signals.
>



I never did any of those things. I think your ire arises from envy.

Even on my bike, I was often held up by cars. Now, working and
commuting between two towns that have sizable university populations, I
am held up by commerical vehicles that ignore the pull-out law, and
scaredy drivers.

Once in the last month by a bicyclist, and that lasted 5 seconds. In
fact, I reported that incident here.

I do like one idea you had - I'd like to see motorists pay 100% for
roads. And I'd like them to pay for some of the indirect costs too.
After all, if it's "user pays", then the users should pay. I would
GLADLY pay an annual user fee for bicycling on the roadways if a true
user-pays system were enacted.

Then I wouldn't have to listen to the snivelliing whiners who wet their
pants over bicycles on the roads.

E.P.

  #409  
Old May 27th 05, 05:19 PM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mike Latondresse > wrote in
:

> Jim Yanik .> wrote in
> :
>
>> Because they use illegal tactics that are prohibited for autos or
>> other motor vehicles.Like squeezing between car and curb.They
>> often do not stop for stop signs or stop lights.They also often
>> ride on the wrong side of the road. They often fail to use any
>> turn or stop signals.
>>

> Yeah mean they are cheating! How aweful in fact shameful. In
> Vancouver in Bike-to-work-week we have a race between a fit cyclist
> and a car to a downtown point (don't know if the driver is fit, in
> fact highly unlikely however it doesn't bias the result). The cyclist
> has always won.
>
>


There was such a race here in Orlando by a couple of Sentinel
newsstaffers,and the bicyclist won,but admitted to cheating.

Of course,the courses are short,and probably chosen by the bicyclist.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
  #410  
Old May 27th 05, 06:24 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com>,
> wrote:
>
>
>I cannot find any info on WA state that suggests that the State Patrol
>is citation-revenue positive. They only get 32% of the ticket revenue,
>while the locale in which the ticket is written gets 68%.


That's an accounting trick.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Arrogant Pedalcyclists in Action John Harlow Driving 8 April 15th 05 01:55 AM
Go Ahead, Try to Justify This Pedalcyclist Behavior Laura Bush murdered her boy friend Driving 4 April 9th 05 07:05 PM
Arrogant Pedalcyclists in Training Brent P Driving 6 April 3rd 05 12:14 AM
Someone's Taking the Piss SteveH Alfa Romeo 11 July 30th 04 02:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.